To examine the relationship between the demographic and experience measures with the composite scores of the scales, we performed a series of regression analyses. Because of missing data, we used pairwise deletion for all regression analyses. In the first set of analyses, we entered gender as a predictor in a model with the affective reactions composite as the criterion and in a second model with the reasonable accommodations composite as the criterion. The overall model, with gender as a predictor, was significant for the affective reaction composite, F( 1, 115) – 5.47, p < .05, R� = .045. The significant, positive regression weight for gender indicated that the affective reactions of women to working with individuals with disabilities were more positive than the reactions of the men (see Table 2). The overall model with the reasonable accommodations composite as the criterion was also significant, F( 1, 116) = 6.92, p < .05, R� = .056. The significant, positive regression weight for gender indicated that women believed the accommodation to be more reasonable than did the men (see Table 2).
In the second set of analyses, we entered the extent of experience with persons who are disabled as a predictor in a model with the affective reactions composite as the criterion and in a second model with the reasonable accommodations composite as the criterion. The overall model, with experience as a predictor, was significant for the affective reactions composite, F( 1, 113) = 2.48, p < .05, R� = .038. The significant, positive regression weight for experience indicated that the affective reactions of individuals who had more experience with persons with disabilities were more positive than those with less experience (see Table 2). The overall model, with experience as a predictor, however, was not significant with the reasonable accommodations composite as the criterion, F( 1, 114) = 0.018, p < .90, R�= .00.
In the third set of analyses, whether the participant had worked with an individual with a disability was entered as a predictor in a model with the affective reactions composite as the criterion and in a second model with the reasonable accommodations composite as the criterion. The overall model, with work experience as a predictor, was not significant for the affective reactions composite, F( 1, 115) = 2.360, p < .13, R� = .020. The overall model, with work experience as a predictor, was also not significant for the reasonable accommodations composite, F( 1, 116) = 0.759, p < .39, R� = .007.
In summary of Study 1, we found that there were large discrepancies between what the participants believed were disabilities and what are legally considered disabilities. We identified gender and experience differences in affective reactions toward working with individuals who are disabled. We also identified gender differences in the rated reasonableness of typical workplace accommodations. We found no difference in affective reactions and the reasonableness of accommodation on the basis of previous work experience.
One reason for the discrepancy between the participants’ beliefs about disabilities and the ADA could be that the participants had little knowledge about the ADA. Therefore, in the second study, we provided participants with a description of the ADA, as well as information indicating that the ADA protects individuals with certain disabilities, diseases, and lifestyle conditions from employment discrimination on the basis of these conditions.
Study 2
The procedure in Study 2 was identical to that used in Study I except that the instructions included a definition of the ADA and a description of the general provisions of the ADA. In Study 2, the internal consistency of the responses on the affective reactions composite was moderate (? = .74) and the internal consistency of the responses for the reasonable accommodations composite was high (? = .92).
